Mohsen Rezaei warned on 11 November that further strikes against Iran could lead to attacks against distant American bases, including in Europe if they were used to attack Iranian territory. In the same television interview, the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council reiterated that enriched nuclear materials would remain in Iran. He also presented the end of the war in Lebanon as an essential condition for the cessation of regional hostilities.
These statements specify the position of Tehran. They do not announce an attack on a European base or an agreement accepted by Washington. The refusal to transfer enriched materials is not new: the spokesman for Iranian diplomacy, Esmaeil Baqaei, had already expressed it on 2 November. The intervention by Rezaei adds details on the uses invoked and the possible targets of a response.
American bases in Europe subject to conditional conditions
Rezaei distinguishes facilities close to Iran from those located further away. It refers to some islands, without naming them, as well as to bases in European countries. For the latter, it explicitly links its threat to the departure of American aircraft that would bomb Iran. His speech does not therefore refer to the entire European territory as a target.
The Iranian official is trying to deter a new American operation by threatening the infrastructure that would be involved. However, it does not provide a timetable for action or a precise list of facilities. The declaration also does not permit the verification of the military capabilities required to reach each of the areas mentioned.
The enriched materials would remain on Iranian territory
On nuclear power, Rezaei claims that Tehran informed its Russian interlocutors of its refusal to transfer enriched materials. He explains that he wants to keep them for Iranian purposes. He cited the design of nuclear powered ships and submarines. He also mentioned the desire to produce small modular reactors. These elements describe claimed directions, not equipment for which commissioning would be established.
The maintenance does not provide a technical file to evaluate these projects. It does not provide a verifiable industrial calendar. The propulsion of a building and its armament are also two distinct questions: to speak of nuclear propulsion does not mean to announce an on-board nuclear weapon.
The precedent of November 2 allows us to situate this intervention. When asked about a possible transfer of enriched uranium abroad, Baqaei had already replied that Iran would not accept it. Rezaei thus confirms a publicly defended line before his interview.
Lebanon remains in Tehran conditions
Rezaei links an end to the war with all the regional fronts, highlighting the case of Lebanon. The lifting of the naval blockade and the release of frozen Iranian assets are also among Tehran’s demands. The person in charge is demanding guarantees against another attack. These requests remain those of the Iranian side; they do not constitute reciprocal commitments already concluded.
For Lebanon, the scope of this position is diplomatic. Tehran seeks to integrate the Lebanese front into the settlement it is demanding with the United States. This does not prove that an agreement on this front exists or that the Lebanese authorities have accepted the modalities mentioned. A condition formulated by Iran is not a decision of the Lebanese government.
Indirect messages, without announced encounter with Vance
On November 10, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had already denied a draft meeting between Rezaei and US Vice President J.D. Vance. At the same time, he maintained Iranian conditions concerning Ormuz. The intervention of the next day does not turn this defied appointment into a confirmed negotiation.
Comments